Kuldip Singh, J.
1.The appellants in this appeal have assailed judgment, decree dated 29.8.1997 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 11/92, reversing judgment, decree dated 26.12.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karsog in Civil Suit No. 68 of 1988. (SNR) 116 of 1991 (KSG).
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondents had filed a suit for declaration and injunction that they are owners in possession of land comprised in khewat No. 102, khatouni No. 119, khasra No. 195, Muhal Baroti/70, measuring 4-12-16 bighas, Tehsil Sundernagar which they had purchased from Dlumbi Devi vide registered sale deed dated 30.12.1980 along with land comprised in khewat No. 103, khatouni No. 120, khasra No. 193, situated in the same village which they had purchased from Sunder through registered sale deed dated 14.1.1981. The further case of the respondents is that they are owners in possession of the suit land but Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar had issued a show cause notice requiring the respondents to explain why they be not ejected. The proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were pending, the A.C. 1st Grade, Sundernagar without deciding the objections filed by the respondents ordered on 25.3.1988 that the order dated 27.5.1986 (sic 22.5.1986) be complied. It has been alleged that both the orders dated 25.3.1988 and 27.5.1986 are null and void.
3. The appellants contested the suit and asserted that land purchased by respondents was allotted to Smt. Dlumbi and Sunder as 'nautor' under the H.P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless and other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 (for short scheme). The land was allotted with the condition that land would not be alienated within a period of 15 years from the date of grant. As the grantees had sold the land in violation of condition, the same was liable to be cancelled and the State Government was entitled to resume the possession of the same. The Additional Deputy Commissioner cancelled the 'nautor' and ordered the resumption of the land. The sale deeds executed by grantees in favour of the respondents are void. The objections of the maintainability of the suit, lack of cause of action, jurisdiction of the Court, non-joinder of necessary parties, limitation, Section 80 CPC notice were taken. In replication, respondents reasserted their case. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit on 26.12.1991. In appeal judgment, decree dated 26.12.1991 was set aside on 29.8.1997 and appellants were restrained from ejecting the respondents from the suit land, hence this appeal which was admitted on 9.9.1998 without reference to any substantial question of law, however, along with the grounds of appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed:
1. Whether the grant of land under the H.P. Nautor Land Rules 1968, is liable to be cancelled for the breach of the conditions envisaged under the said rules?
2. Whether misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence on record will amount to a substantial question of law?
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case grant was rightly cancelled?
In light of order dated 9.9.1998 of admission, the appellants have been heard on the above substantial questions of law.
4. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that lower Appellant Court has erred in setting aside well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. It has been submitted that the sale deeds executed by Smt. Dlumbi Devi and Sunder in favour of the respondents are void and in contravention of the scheme, therefore, the allotments of two sets of lands were rightly cancelled.
Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3.
5. The substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3 are interconnected, therefore, all of them are being taken up together for disposal. Para-5 of the scheme provides for grant of nautor land. Para-9 provides that there shall be no right of appeal against the grant of nautor land to a landless person or to other eligible persons under this scheme. Para 9-A provides revision, para-11 provides restriction on transfer. Paras 9-A and 11 are relevant and are reproduced here-in-below:
Para 9-A Revision If at any time, it comes to the notice of the Commissioner either through an application made by any person or otherwise, that the allotment of any land under this scheme was made to a person who was not entitled or eligible for such allotment or the allotment was wrong on any other grounds, he may call for the record of the case and after making such enquiries as he thinks proper in person or through a Revenue Officer subordinate to him and after giving an opportunity to the parties concerned, he may cancel the grant of land and make such other orders in connection therewith as he deems necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Para 11 Restriction on transfer the grantee shall not transfer the land granted under this scheme to any person within a period of 20 years from the date of taking over possession of the land by him. In the event of contravention of the provisions of the para the grant shall be liable to be resumed by the State Government and no further allotment of land should be made to him thereafter. Similarly if he fails to break up the land within a period of 2 years from the date of taking over of the possession the grant shall be liable to be resumed.
Provided that the land granted under this scheme shall not be subject to fragmentation by way of partition, transfer or by any other mean. The Revenue Officer shall record these conditions in the mutation orders to be passed by him. His orders shall further be recorded in the remarks column of the jamabandi in which the mutation pertaining to the land is incorporated.
Provided the allotee may transfer the land by way of mortgage without possession in favour of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society a Bank as defined in the H.P. Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous provisions (Banks) Act 1972 (Act No. 7 of 1973) for the purpose of raising loans for development of such land raising of crops, purchase of bullocks seed and fertilizers etc. for bringing the land under cultivation.
6. The perusal of Para 9-A would show that if at any time, it comes to the notice of the Commissioner either through an application made by any person or otherwise that the allotment of any land under this scheme was made to a person who was not entitled or eligible for such allotment or the allotment was wrong on any grounds, he may call for the record of the case and after enquiry and giving an opportunity to the parties concerned, he may cancel the. grant of land. The allotment can be cancelled on the grounds that the person was not entitled or eligible for such allotment or the allotment was wrong on any other ground. 'Any other ground' in para 9-A is to be read ejusdem generis with the earlier part of the para under which Commissioner can cancel the allotment.
7. The sale of land by the grantees within the prohibited period is not covered by para 9-A of the scheme. On the contrary restriction on transfer is provided in para 11 of the scheme which provides that the grantee shall not transfer the land granted under this scheme to any person within a period of 20 years from the date of taking over possession of land by him. It also provides that in the event of contravention of the provisions of the para the grant shall be liable to be resumed by the State Government. There are certain exceptions to the transfer which are contemplated in second proviso to para 11 of the scheme.
8. The allotments of Dlumbi and Sunder have not been cancelled under para 9-A of the scheme on the ground that Dlumbi and Sunder were not eligible at the time of original allotment. The thrust of the defence of the appellants is that the sale deeds executed by Dlumbi, Sunder in favour of the respondents are in contravention of the scheme and are void, therefore, in these circumstances, Additional Deputy Commissioner has rightly rejected the land granted to Dlumbi and Sunder and ordered that the land stands transferred to the Government. The respondents have no right in the suit land, who are encroachers on the Government land. The appellant No. 3 has rightly directed the field kanungo to implement the order as the lands stand resumed by the Government. In brief the appellants are projecting their case under para 11 of the scheme for cancellation of allotments of lands in favour of Dlumbi and Sunder.
9. Ex.DW-1/C is the copy of order dated 29.8.1981 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, ordering rejection of sanction of land granted to Dlumbi, similarly vide order dated 29.8.1981 Ex.DW-1/D, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi has rejected the order of sanction of land allotted to Sunder. The allotment of land of Dlumbi has been cancelled because she had sold the land to respondents vide registered sale deed dated 30.12.1980 and the allotment of land of Sunder has been cancelled because he had sold the land to respondents vide sale deed dated 8.1.1981.
10. The land under para 11 of the scheme is liable to be resumed by the State Government if the allotted land under the scheme is transferred to any other person within a period of 20 years. The State Government is authorized to resume the land but there is no indication' in para 11 or otherwise in the scheme that Additional Deputy Commissioner is authorized to pass the resumption order after cancelling the allotment under para 11 of the scheme nor such authority of Additional Deputy Commissioner has been shown during the course of the hearing of the appeal. The orders dated 29.8.1981 Ex.DW-1/C and order dated 29.8.1981 Ex.DW-1/D passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi cancelling the allotments of Dlumbi and Sunder respectively are without jurisdiction. On the basis of those orders the further action of the appellants to take possession from respondents of the suit land vide order dated 22.5.1986 Ex.PH and the order dated 25.3.1988 Ex.PX are also without jurisdiction. Ex.PH and Ex.PX do not have independent origin but are based upon the assumption of the appellants that since allotments of land of Dlumbi and Sunder have been cancelled, therefore, respondents are trespassers on the land in dispute. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. The appellants have failed to point out any infirmity, illegality in the impugned judgment, decree, hence substantial questions of law 1 to 3 are decided against the appellants.
11. No other point was urged.
12. The result of above discussion, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.